sampo ip v. blackboard et. al..pdf

8/14/2019 Sampo IP v. Blackboard et. al..pdf

1/30

FILEDIN T H E U N I T E D S T A TE S D I ST R IC T C O U R T

F O R T H E E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F V I R G I N I A

S A MP O IP , LLC,

B LA CKB O A R D , INC., andSALESFORCE.COM, INC.

Alexandria Division)

Plaintiff,

D e fe n d a n ts .

Z I3 NOV -1 P 12: 01CLERK US [HSTRICT COURTALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

Civil Action No ^ 3CA 6c>J U R Y T R I A L D E M A N D E D

C O M P L A I N T F O R P A T EN T I NF R IN G E M E NTPlaintiff, Sampo IP, LLC ( Sampo ), for itsComplaint of patent infringement, alleges as

follows:

N A T U R E O F T H E A C T I O N

This is an action forpatent infringement of United StatesPatentNo.6,161,149 (the '149Patent ), United States Patent No. 6,772,229 (the '229 Patent ), and United States Patent No.8,015,495 (the '495 Patent ) (collectively, the Patents-in-Suit ) under the Patent Laws of theUnited States, 35 U.S.C. et seq. and seeking damages and injunctive andother reliefunder35 U.S.C. 2 \tetseq.

T h e Parties

1 Sampo is a Virginia limited liability company with its principal place of businesslocated at 2331 Mill Road, Suite 100,Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

2. On information and belief, Blackboard, Inc. ( Blackboard ) is a Delawarecorporation with its principal place of business at 650 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington,


2/30

D.C. 20001. Blackboard and its affiliates and subsidiaries provide e-learning software servicesand have locations all over the world, including Northern Virginia.

3. On information and belief, Salesforce.com, Inc. ( Salesforce ) is a Delawarecorporation with its principle place of business at One Market Plaza, Suite 300, San Francisco,California 94105. Salesforce is a global cloud computer company specializing in software as aservice ( SAAS ) with major offices all over the world, including two data centers located inNorthern Virginia.

Jur isdic t ion a n d V e n u e

4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of theUnited States, Title 35 of the United States Code.

5. ThisCourt has subject matterjurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) because the actionconcerns the infringement of UnitedStates patents.

6. Uponinformation and belief, thisCourt has personal jurisdictionoverBlackboardbecause Blackboard conducts substantial business in this district, directly or throughintermediaries, including (i)at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein, and (ii)regularly doing or soliciting business in thisdistrict, engaging in otherpersistent courses ofconduct in this forum, deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided toindividuals in this forum, maintaining continuous and systematic contacts with this forum, and/orpurposefully availing itselfof theprivileges of doing business inVirginia.

7. Venue is properin thisjudicial district as to Blackboard pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b) because, among other reasons, Blackboard is subject to personaljurisdiction in thisdistrict, Blackboard has facilities andemployees in this district, andBlackboard has committed andcontinues to commit acts of patent infringement in this district.


3/30

On information and belief, for example, Blackboard has used, sold, offered for sale, and/orimported infringing products and services in this district.

8. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Salesforcebecause Salesforce conducts substantial business in this district, directly or throughintermediaries, including (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein, and (ii)regularly doing or soliciting business in this district, engaging in other persistent courses ofconduct in this forum, deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided toindividuals in this forum, maintaining continuous and systematic contacts with this forum, and/or

purposefully availing itselfof the privileges of doing business in Virginia. Salesforce operates atleast two major data centers in Northern Virginia.

9. Venue is proper in this judicial district as to Salesforce pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b)because, among other reasons, Salesforce is subject to personaljurisdictionin thisDistrict andSalesforce hascommitted andcontinues to commitacts of patentinfringementin this District. On information and belief, for example, Salesforce has used, sold, offered forsale, and/or imported infringing products and services in this District.

T h e P atents In Sui t

10. Sampo is theownerby assignment of the ' 149Patent, entitled CentrifugalCommunication and Collaboration Method, which the United States Patent Trademark Officeduly issued onDecember 12, 2000. A true and correct copy of the '149 Patent is attachedheretoa s Exhi bi t A.

11. Sampo is the owner by assignment of the '229 Patent, entitled CentrifugalCommunication and Collaboration Method, which the United States Patent Trademark Office


4/30

duly issued on August 3, 2004. A true and correct copy of the 229 Patent is attached hereto asExhibit B.

12. Sampo is the owner by assignment of the 495 Patent, entitled CentrifugalCommunication and Collaboration Method, which the United States Patent Trademark Officeduly issued on September 6, 2011. A true and correct copy of the 495 Patent is attached heretoas Exhibit C.

Factual Background13. The inventions of the Patents-in-Suit are applicable to, among other things,

transmitting, receiving and distributing information among peripheral computing devices using acentral agent. The central agent selectively pushes notices to peripheral devices, allowingperipheral devices to access certain information. The inventions facilitate asynchronouscollaboration among participants, and allow certain participants to receive certain informationwhile preventing other participants from receiving the information.

14. For example, and without limitation, the inventions of the Patents-in-Suit areapplicable to a central agent that receives information from and transmits information toperipheralcomputingdevices ofmembers of a group. The central agent receives informationfrom a computing deviceof a firstmemberof a group, the information indicating to which othermembers certain information is relevant. The central agent thensendsa notice to only theselected members, andallowsaccessto information to onlythose selected members. Similarly,

the central agentmayreceive additional information from anothermemberof thegroup, theinformation indicating to which othermembers certain information is relevant. The central agentthen sends a noticeonly to the selectedmembers,and allows access to information to only thoseselected members.


5/30

15. For another example, without limitation, the inventions of the Patents-in-Suit areapplicable to a central agent that receives information from and transmits information toperipheral computing devices of participants in a distributed application. The central agentreceives information from a computing device of a first participant, the information indicating towhich other participants certain information is relevant. The central agent then sends a notice toonly the selected participants, and allows access to information to only those selectedparticipants. Similarly, the central agent may receive additional information from anotherparticipant, the information indicating to which other participants certain information is relevant.

The central agent then sends a notice to only the selected participants, and allows access toinformation to only those selected participants.

Blackboard s Infringing Products and Methods16. Upon information and belief, Blackboard's products, including without limitation

Blackboard Collaborate, Blackboard Learn and Blackboard Learn for Salesforce, use an onlinecommunication systemwhich offers a distributed discussion groupcommunication systemwhereby the usersof suchsystems, viaa network of computing devices linked bya network, areable to communicate with one another using such computingdevices. The computingdevicesinclude computers and cellulartelephones and arecapable of transmitting and receivinginformation.

17. The systemhas a central agent (e.g., Blackboard server system) that can receiveinformation from, and transmit information to, the computingdevicesof the users. Thecentralagent pushes notices to selected users. The users' computing devices are linked or networked tothe Blackboard central agent. With respect to Blackboard Learn for Salesforce, the users'computer devices are linked or networked to the Blackboard and/orSalesforce central agent.


6/30

18. By way of example, the information communicated between users can be used tosend messages either to all members of a group or a set ofmembers within a group to facilitatecommunication within the group. A first user is able to input information intended for a seconduser into the first user's computing device. Blackboard's system will, based upon theinformation provided by the first user, generate a notice to a second user and allow the seconduser to access the information from the first user. A second user is able to input informationintended for a third user into the seconduser's computing device. Blackboard's systemwill,based upon the information provided by the second user, generate a notice to a third user andallow the third user to access to the information f rom the second user.

19. By way of another example, Blackboard's system stores first and secondinformation. Blackboard s system pushes notices to group participants, (i)allowing a first groupparticipant to access the first information,while suppressing access to the first informationto asecondgroupparticipant, and (ii) allowingthe secondgroup participantto accessthe secondinformation while suppressing access to the second information to the first group participant.

Salesforce's Infringing Products and Methods20. Upon information and belief, Salesforce's products, including without limitation

Salesforce Chatter, use an online communication systemwhich offers a distributed discussiongroup communication system whereby the users of such systems, via a network ofcomputingdevices linked by a network, are able tocommunicate with one another using such computingdevices. The computing devices include computers and cellular telephones and are capable oftransmitting and receiving information.

21. The systemhas a central agent (e.g., Salesforce server system) thatcan receiveinformation from, andtransmit information to, thecomputing devices of the users. The central


7/30

agent pushes notices to selected users. The users' computing devices are linked or networked tothe Salesforce central agent. With respect to Blackboard Learn for Salesforce, the users'computer devices are linked or networked to the Salesforce and/or Blackboard central agent.

22. By way of example, the information communicated between users can be used tosendmessages either to all members of a group or a set ofmembers within a group to facilitatecommunication within the group. A first user is able to input information intended for a seconduser into the first user's computing device. Salesforce's systemwill, based upon the informationprovided by the first user, generate a notice to a second user and allow the second user to access

the information fromthe first user. A seconduser is able to input information intended for athird user into the second user's computing device. Salesforce's system will, based upon theinformation provided by the second user, generate a notice to a third user and allow the third userto a cce ss to th e information from the second user.

23. By way of another example, Salesforce's system stores first and secondinformation. Salesforce s system pushes notices to group participants, (i) allowing a first groupparticipant to accessthe first information, while suppressing accessto the first information to asecond groupparticipant, and (ii)allowing thesecond groupparticipant to access the secondinformation while suppressing access to the second information tothe first group participant.

Blackboard and Salesforce Joint and Several Liability24. Withrespect to the infringing Blackboard Learn for Salesforce product,

Blackboard purports to have joinedforces withSalesforce to develop the product. Blackboardfurther purports thatit integrated Salesforce.com s Chatter social media platform into its tool,andthatthe product is integrated with force.com (a Salesforce platform) and integrated withinSalesforce.com.


8/30

25. On information and belief, the Blackboard Learn for Salesforce productincorporates and integrates Salesforce's infringing Chatter product. Moreover, the BlackboardLearn for Salesforce product runs on Salesforce's platform and servers.

26. At least with respect to the Blackboard Learn for Salesforce product, Blackboardsells and offers for sale the infringing Salesforce Chatter communication systemas an integratedpart ofBlackboard Learn for Salesforce. On information and belief, Salesforce's infringingChatter product was made and designed by Salesforce and provided to Blackboard by Salesforce.In view of Blackboard's sales of infringing products made by Salesforce, Blackboard and

Salesforce are jointly and severally liable for the infringement of the Blackboard Learn forSalesforceproduct and the SalesforceChatter product incorporatedtherein.

27. In addition to providing its infringingChatter product to Blackboard, Salesforcealso sells and offers for sale the infringingChatter product to other entities.

28. At leastwith respectto the Blackboard Learnfor Salesforce productand theSalesforce Chatter product, questions of fact common to both Blackboard and Salesforce willarise inthis action because the same infringing communication system is incorporated in bothproducts.

C O U N T I: INF R ING E ME NT O F T H E 1 49 P A T E N T29. Plaintiff incorporatesparagraphs 1-28herein by reference as if set forth here in

full.

30. Upon information andbelief, Blackboard has been andis currently directlyinfringing one ormore claims ofthe'149Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or sellingwithin theUnited States, and/orimporting intotheUnited States, without authority, theaforementioned online communication system. Forexample, andwithout limitation, Blackboard


9/30

directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the 149 Patent in this judicial district andelsewhere in the United States. Blackboard s direct infringement includes, without limitation, i)making and using the apparatus of claim 1 and claims dependent thereon, and ii) practicingthemethod of claim 14 and claims dependent thereon.

31. Blackboard also directly infringes one or more claims of the 149 Patentbydirecting and/or controlling its employees, executives, users, agents, affiliates, suppliersandcustomers to use the aforementioned online communication system within the United States.

32. Blackboard also directly infringes one ormore claims of the 149 Patent by

providing a website for users and/or providing applications that are downloadable on peripheralcomputing devices, thus puttingthe aforementioned online communication system into use.

33. By usingthe methodsclaimed in the 149 Patent andby makingand/or usingtheaforementioned online communication system, Blackboard hasbeen and is now directlyinfringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 oneormore claims of the 149 Patent, either literally orunderthe doctrine of equivalents.

34. Upon information andbelief, upon knowledge of the 149 Patent at least sincethe filing date of thisComplaint), Blackboard is contributing to the infringement of the 149Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging itscustomers,suppliers, agents, users and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Blackboard saforementioned online communication system that constitutes infringement of oneor moreclaims o f the 149 Patent. There are no substantial uses of the aforementioned onlinecommunication system that do not infringe one or more claims of the 149 Patent. Blackboard swebsite and downloadable applications that Blackboard provides to itscustomers, for example,have no substantial non-infringing uses.


10/30

35. By contributing to its customers , suppliers , agents , users and affiliates use ofthe methods claimed in the 149 Patentand their making and/or using the aforementioned onlinecommunication system, Blackboard has been and is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 c) one or more claims of the 149 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

36. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the 149 Patent at least sincethe filing dateof this Complaint), Blackboard is inducing infringement of the 149 Patent by,among other things, knowingly andwith intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers,users, agents and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Blackboard s aforementionedonline communication system in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or more claims oft h e 1 4 9 Patent.

37. To the extent that Blackboard s customers can be considered to put theaforementioned communication system into use, then Blackboard would also be inducinginfringement of the 149 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), actively encouraging its customers to make and useBlackboard s aforementioned online communication system in a manner that constitutesinfringement of one or more claims of the 149 Patent.

38. By inducing its customers , suppliers , users , agents and affiliates use of themethods claimed in the 149 Patentandtheir making and/orusing the aforementioned online

communication system, Blackboard hasbeen and is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 b) one or more claims of the 149 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

10


11/30

39. As a result of Blackboard s unlawful infringement of the 149 Patent, Sampo hassuffered and will continue to suffer damage. Sampo is entitled to recover from Blackboard thedamages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yet to be determined.

40. An y further manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or importation byBlackboard of the aforementioned communication systems will demonstrate a deliberate andconscious decision to infringe the 149 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard ofSampo s patent rights. If Blackboard continues to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/orimport the aforementioned communication systems following its notice of the 149 Patent claims,

Blackboard s infringement will be willful and Sampo will be entitled to treble damages andattorneys fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. 284, 285.

41. Blackboard will continueto infringe the 149 Patent unless anduntil it is enjoinedby this Court.

42. Blackboard, by wa y of its infringing activities, has caused and continues to causeSampo to sufferdamages in an amount to be determined at trial. Sampo has no adequate remedyatlaw against Blackboard s acts of infringement and, unless Blackboard is enjoined from itsinfringement of the 149 Patent, Sampo will suffer irreparable harm.

43. Upon information andbelief, Salesforce hasbeenandis currently directlyinfringing one ormore claims of the 149 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or sellingwithin the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, theaforementioned online communication system. For example, and without limitation, Salesforcedirectly infringed andcontinuesto directly infringethe 149 Patent in this judicial district andelsewhere in the United States. Salesforce s direct infringement includes, without limitation, i)


12/30

making and using the apparatus of claim 1 andclaims dependent thereon, and ii) practicing themethod of claim 14 and claims dependent thereon.

44. Salesforce also directly infringes one or more claims of the 149 Patent bydirecting and/or controlling its employees, executives, users, agents, affiliates, suppliers andcustomers to use the aforementioned online communication system within the United States.

45. Salesforce also directly infringes oneor more claims of the 149 Patent byproviding a website for users and/or providing applications that are downloadable on peripheralcomputing devices, thus putting the aforementioned online communication systeminto use.

46. By using the methods claimed inthe 149 Patent and by making and/or using theaforementioned online communication system, Salesforce has been and is now directly infringingunder 35 U.S.C. 271 oneor more claims of the 149 Patent, either literally orunder the doctrineof equivalents.

47. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the 149 Patent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), Salesforce is contributing tothe infringement of the 149Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging itscustomers,suppliers, agents, users and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Salesforce saforementioned online communication system that constitutes infringement of one ormoreclaims of the 149 Patent. There are no substantial uses of the aforementioned onlinecommunication system that do not infringe one or more claims of the 149 Patent. Salesforce s

website and downloadable applications that Salesforce provides to its customers, for example,have no substantial non-infringing uses.

48. By contributing to its customers , suppliers , agents , users and affiliates use ofthe methods claimed in the 149 Patent and their making and/or using the aforementioned online

12


13/30

communication system, Salesforce has been and is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 c) one or more claims of the 149 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

49. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the 149 Patent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), Salesforce is inducing infringement of the 149 Patent by,among other things, knowingly andwith intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers,users, agents and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Salesforce s aforementionedonline communication system in a manner that constitutes infringement of oneor more claims ofthe 149 Patent.

50. To the extentthat Salesforce s customers can be considered to put theaforementioned communication system into use, then Salesforce would also be inducinginfringement of the 149 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), actively encouraging its customers to makeand useSalesforce s aforementioned onlinecommunication system in a manner that constitutesinfringement of one or more claims of the 149 Patent.

51. By inducing its customers , suppliers , users , agents andaffiliates use of themethods claimed inthe 149 Patent and their making and/or using the aforementioned onlinecommunication system, Salesforce has been and is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 b) oneormore claims of the 149 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

52. As aresult of Salesforce s unlawful infringement of the 149 Patent, Sampo hassufferedandwill continueto suffer damage. Sampo is entitledto recover from Salesforce thedamages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yetto bedetermined.

13


14/30

53. Any further manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or importation bySalesforce of the aforementioned communication systems will demonstrate a deliberate andconscious decision to infringe the 149 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard ofSampo s patent rights. If Salesforce continues to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/orimport the aforementioned communication systems following its notice of the '149 Patent claims,Salesforce's infringement will be willful and Sampo will be entitled to treble damages andattorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C.284,285.

54. Salesforcewill continue to infringe the '149 Patent unless and until it is enjoinedby this Court.

55. Salesforce, by way of its infringing activities, has caused and continues to causeSampo to sufferdamages in anamountto bedetermined at trial. Sampohas no adequate remedyat lawagainst Salesforce's actsof infringement and,unless Salesforce is enjoined from itsinfringement of the '149 Patent, Sampowill suffer irreparable harm.

C O U N T II : I N F R I N G E M E N T O F T H E 2 29 P A T E N T56. Plaintiff incorporatesparagraphs 1-55 herein by reference as if set forth here in

full.57. Upon information and belief, Blackboard has been and is currently directly

infringing one ormore claims ofthe'229Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or sellingwithin the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, theaforementioned online communication system. For example, and without limitation, Blackboarddirectly infringed andcontinues to directly infringe the '229 Patentin this judicialdistrict andelsewhere intheUnited States. Blackboard's direct infringement includes, without limitation, (i)

14


15/30

making and using the apparatus of one or more of claims 1, and dependant claims thereon, and52-55, and ii) practicing the method of one or more of claims 22 and claims dependent thereon.

58. Blackboard also directly infringes one or more claims of the 229 Patent bydirecting and/orcontrolling its employees, executives, users, agents, affiliates, suppliersandcustomers to use the aforementioned online communication system within the United States.

59. Blackboardalso directly infringes one or more claims of the 229 Patent byproviding a website for users and/or providing applications that are downloadable on peripheralcomputingdevices, thus puttingthe aforementioned online communication system into use.

60. By usingthe methods claimed in the 229 Patent and by making and/or using theaforementioned online communication system, Blackboard has been and is now directlyinfringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 oneormore claims of the 229 Patent, either literally or underthe doctrine of equivalents.

61. Upon information and belief,upon knowledge of the 229 Patent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), Blackboard is contributing tothe infringement of the 229Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers,suppliers, agents, users and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Blackboard saforementioned online communication system that constitutes infringement of one ormoreclaims of the 229 Patent. There are no substantial uses of the aforementioned onlinecommunication system that do not infringeone or more claimsof the 229 Patent. Blackboard s

website and downloadable applications that Blackboard provides to its customers, for example,have no substantial non-infringing uses.

62. By contributing to its customers , suppliers , agents , users and affiliates use ofthe methods claimed inthe 229 Patent and their making and/or using the aforementioned online

15


16/30

communication system, Blackboard has been and is no w indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 c) one or more claims of the 229 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

63. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the 229 Patent at least sincethe filing dateof this Complaint), Blackboard is inducing infringement of the 229 Patent by,among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers,users, agents and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Blackboard s aforementionedonline communication system in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or more claims ofth e 229 Patent.

64. To the extent that Blackboard s customerscan be consideredto put theaforementioned communication system into use, then Blackboard would also be inducinginfringement of the 229 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), actively encouraging its customers to make anduseBlackboard s aforementioned online communication system in a mannerthat constitutesinfringement of one or more claims of the 229 Patent.

65. By inducingits customers , suppliers , users , agents andaffiliates use of themethods claimed inthe 229 Patent and their making and/or using the aforementioned onlinecommunication system, Blackboard has been and is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 b) oneor more claims of the 229 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

As a result of Blackboard s unlawful infringement of the 229 Patent, Sampo hassuffered andwill continue to suffer damage. Sampo is entitledto recover from Blackboard thedamages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yetto bedetermined.

16


17/30

67. Any further manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or importation byBlackboard of the aforementioned communication systems will demonstrate a deliberate andconscious decision to infringe the 229 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard ofSampo s patent rights. If Blackboard continues to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/orimport the aforementioned communication systems following its notice o f the 229 Patent claims,Blackboard s infringement will be willful and Sampo will be entitled to treble damages andattorneys fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. 284,285.

68. Blackboard will continue to infringe the 229 Patent unless and until it is enjoinedby this Court.

69. Blackboard, by wa y of its infringing activities, has caused and continues to causeSampo to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Sampo has no adequate remedyat law against Blackboard s acts of infringement and, unless Blackboard is enjoined from itsinfringement of the 229 Patent, Sampo will suffer irreparable harm.

70. Upon information and belief, Salesforce has been and is currently directlyinfringing oneormore claims of the 229 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or sellingwithinthe United States, and/or importing intothe United States, without authority, theaforementioned online communication system. For example, and without limitation, Salesforcedirectly infringed and continuesto directly infringethe 229 Patent in this judicial district and

elsewhere in the United States. Salesforce s direct infringement includes, without limitation, i)making and using the apparatus of one ormore of claims 1, and dependantclaimsthereon, and52-55,and ii) practicing the method of one or more of claims 22 and claims dependentthereon.

17


18/30

71. Salesforce also directly infringes one or more claims of the 229 Patent bydirecting and/or controlling its employees, executives, users, agents, affiliates, suppliers andcustomers to use the aforementioned online communication system within the United States.

72. Salesforce also directly infringes one or more claims of the 229 Patent byprovidinga website forusers and/orproviding applications that are downloadable on peripheralcomputing devices, thus putting the aforementioned online communication system into use.

73. By using the methods claimed in the 229 Patentand by making and/orusing theaforementioned online communication system, Salesforce hasbeen andis now directly infringingunder 35 U.S.C. 271 one or more claims of the 229 Patent, either literally or underthe doctrineof equivalents.

74. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the 229 Patent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), Salesforce is contributing to the infringementof the 229Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers,suppliers, agents, users and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Salesforce saforementioned online communication system that constitutes infringement of oneor moreclaims of the 229 Patent. There are no substantial uses of the aforementioned onlinecommunication system that do not infringe one or more claims of the 229 Patent. Salesforce swebsite and downloadable applications that Salesforce provides to its customers, for example,have no substantial non-infringinguses.

75. By contributing to its customers , suppliers , agents , users and affiliates use ofthe methods claimed inthe 229 Patent and their making and/or using the aforementioned onlinecommunication system, Salesforce has beenand is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C.

18


19/30

271 c) one or more claims of the 229 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine o fequivalents.

76. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the 229 Patent at least sincethe filing dateof this Complaint), Salesforce is inducing infringement of the 229 Patent by,among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers,users, agents and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Salesforce s aforementionedonline communication system in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or more claims ofthe 229 Patent.

77. To the extent that Salesforce s customerscan be consideredto put theaforementioned communication system into use, then Salesforce would also be inducinginfringement of the 229 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), actively encouraging its customers to make and useSalesforce s aforementioned online communication system in a mannerthat constitutesinfringement of one or more claims of the 229 Patent.

78. By inducing its customers ,suppliers , users , agents and affiliates use of themethods claimed inthe 229 Patent and their making and/or using the aforementioned onlinecommunication system, Salesforce has been and isnow indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 b) oneormore claims of the 229 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

79. As a result of Salesforce s unlawful infringement of the 229 Patent, Sampo hassuffered and will continue to sufferdamage. Sampo is entitled to recover from Salesforce thedamages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yet to bedetermined.

19


20/30

80. Any furthermanufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or importationbySalesforce of the aforementioned communication systems will demonstrate a deliberate andconscious decision to infringe the '229 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard ofSampo's patent rights. If Salesforce continues to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/orimport the aforementioned communicationsystems following its notice of the '229 Patentclaims,Salesforce'sinfringement will be willful andSampo will be entitled to trebledamages andattorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action, alongwith prejudgment interestunder 35U.S.C.284,285.

81. Salesforce will continueto infringe the '229 Patent unless anduntil it is enjoinedby this Court.

82. Salesforce, by way of its infringing activities, has caused and continues to causeSampo to suffer damages inan amount tobedetermined at trial. Sampo has noadequate remedyat law against Salesforce's acts of infringement and, unless Salesforce is enjoined from itsinfringement of the '229 Patent, Sampo will suffer irreparable harm.

CO U NT III: INF R ING E ME NT OF T H E 4 95 P A T E N T83. Plaintiffincorporates paragraphs 1-82 herein by reference as if set forth herein

full.

84. Upon information andbelief, Blackboard has been andis currently directlyinfringing one ormore claims of the 495 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or sellingwithin the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, theaforementioned online communication system. Forexample, andwithout limitation, Blackboarddirectly infringed and continues to directly infringe the '495 Patent in thisjudicial district andelsewhere in the United States. Blackboard s direct infringement includes, without limitation, (i)

20


21/30

making and using the apparatus of claim 16 and claims dependent thereon, and ii) practicingthemethod of claim 1 and claims dependent thereon.

85. Blackboard also directly infringes one or more claims of the 495 Patent bydirecting and/or controlling its employees, executives, users, agents, affiliates, suppliers andcustomers to use the aforementioned online communication system within the United States.

86. Blackboard also directly infringes one or more claims of the 495 Patent byproviding a website for users and/or providing applicationsthat aredownloadable on peripheralcomputing devices, thus putting the aforementioned online communication system into use.

87. By using the methods claimed in the 495 Patentand by making and/orusing theaforementioned online communication system, Blackboard has been and is now directlyinfringing under 35U.S.C. 271 one ormore claims of the 495 Patent, either literally or underthe doctrine of equivalents.

88. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the 495 Patent at leastsincethe filing date of this Complaint), Blackboard is contributing to the infringementof the 495Patent by, among otherthings, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers,suppliers, agents, users and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Blackboard saforementioned online communication system that constitutes infringement of oneormoreclaims o f t he 4 95 Patent. There are no substantial uses o f the aforementioned onlinecommunication system that do not infringe one or more claims of the 495 Patent. Blackboard swebsite and downloadable applications that Blackboard provides to its customers, for example,have no substantial non-infringing uses.

89. By contributingto its customers , suppliers , agents , users and affiliates use ofthe methods claimed in the 495 Patent and their making and/or usingthe aforementioned online

21


22/30

communication system, Blackboard has been and is no w indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 c) one or more claims of the 495 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

90. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the 495 Patent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), Blackboard is inducing infringement of the 495 Patentby,among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers,users, agents and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Blackboard s aforementionedonline communication system in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or more claims ofthe 495 Patent.

91. To the extent that Blackboard s customers can be considered to put theaforementioned communication system into use, then Blackboard would also be inducinginfringement of the 495 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), actively encouraging its customers to make and useBlackboard s aforementioned online communication system in a manner that constitutesinfringement of one or more claims of the 495 Patent.

92. By inducingits customers , suppliers , users , agents and affiliates use of themethods claimed in the 495 Patent andtheir making and/orusing the aforementioned onlinecommunication system, Blackboard hasbeen and is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 b) one or more claims of the 495 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

93. As a result of Blackboard s unlawful infringementof the 495 Patent, Sampo hassuffered and will continue to suffer damage. Sampo is entitled to recover from Blackboard thedamages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yet to be determined.

22


23/30

94. Any further manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or importation byBlackboard of the aforementioned communication systems will demonstrate a deliberate andconscious decision to infringe the 495 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard ofSampo s patent rights. If Blackboard continues to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/orimport the aforementioned communication systems following its notice of the 495 Patent claims,Blackboard s infringement will be willful and Sampo will be entitled to treble damages andattorneys fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C.284,285.

95. Blackboard will continue to infringe the 495 Patent unless and until it is enjoinedby this Court.

96. Blackboard, by wa y of its infringing activities, has caused and continues to causeSampo to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Sampo has no adequate remedyat law against Blackboard s acts of infringement and, unless Blackboard is enjoined from itsinfringement of the 495 Patent, Sampo will suffer irreparable harm.

97. Upon information and belief, Salesforce has been and is currently directlyinfringing oneor more claims of the 495 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or sellingwithin the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, theaforementioned online communication system. Forexample, and without limitation, Salesforcedirectly infringed and continues to directly infringe the 495 Patent in this judicialdistrict andelsewhere in the United States. Salesforce s direct infringement includes, without limitation, i)making andusing the apparatus of claim 16and claims dependent thereon, and ii)practicing themethod of claim 1 and claims dependent thereon.

23


24/30

98. Salesforce also directly infringes one or more claims of the 495 Patent bydirecting and/orcontrolling its employees, executives, users, agents, affiliates, suppliersandcustomers to use the aforementioned online communication system within the United States.

99. Salesforce alsodirectly infringes one or more claims of the 495 Patent byproviding a website for users and/or providing applications that are downloadable on peripheralcomputing devices, thus putting the aforementioned online communication system into use.

100. By usingthe methods claimed in the 495 Patent and by makingand/or using theaforementioned online communication system, Salesforce has been and is nowdirectly infringingunder 35 U.S.C. 271 one ormore claimsof the 495 Patent, either literally or underthe doctrineof equivalents.

101. Upon information andbelief,upon knowledge of the 495 Patent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), Salesforce is contributing to the infringement of the 495Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers,suppliers, agents, users and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Salesforce saforementioned online communication system that constitutes infringement of one ormoreclaims of the 495 Patent. There are no substantial uses of the aforementioned onlinecommunication system thatdo not infringe one ormore claimsof the 495 Patent. Salesforce swebsite and downloadable applications that Salesforce provides to its customers, for example,have no substantial non-infringing uses.

102. By contributing to its customers , suppliers , agents , users and affiliates use ofthe methods claimed in the 495 Patent and their making and/or using the aforementioned onlinecommunication system, Salesforce has been and is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C.

24


25/30

271 c) one or more claims of the 495 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

103. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the 495 Patent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), Salesforce is inducing infringement of the 495 Patent by,among otherthings, knowingly andwith intent, activelyencouraging its customers, suppliers,users, agents and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Salesforce s aforementionedonline communication system in a manner that constitutes infringement of oneor more claims ofthe 4 95 Patent.

104. To the extent that Salesforce s customers canbe considered to put theaforementioned communication system into use, then Salesforce would also be inducinginfringement of the 495 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent at least sincethe filing date of this Complaint), actively encouraging its customers to makeand useSalesforce s aforementioned onlinecommunication system in a manner that constitutesinfringement of one or more claims of the 495 Patent.

105. By inducing its customers , suppliers , users , agents and affiliates use of themethods claimed inthe 495 Patent and their making and/or using the aforementioned onlinecommunication system, Salesforce has been and isnowindirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. 271 b) oneormore claims of the 495 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine ofequivalents.

106. As aresult of Salesforce s unlawful infringement of the 495 Patent, Sampo hassuffered and will continue to suffer damage. Sampo is entitled to recover from Salesforce thedamages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yet to bedetermined.

25


26/30

107. Any further manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or importation bySalesforce of the aforementioned communication systems will demonstrate a deliberate andconscious decision to infringe the '495 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard ofSampo s patent rights. If Salesforce continues to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/orimport the aforementioned communication systems following its notice of the '495 Patent claims,Salesforce's infringement will be willful and Sampo will be entitled to treble damages andattorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. 284,285.

108. Salesforcewill continue to infringethe '495 Patent unless and until it is enjoinedby this Court.

109. Salesforce, by way of its infringing activities, has caused and continues to causeSampo to sufferdamages in anamountto bedetermined at trial. Sampohas no adequate remedyat law against Salesforce's acts of infringementand, unless Salesforce is enjoined from itsinfringement of the '495 Patent, Sampo will suffer irreparable harm.

P R A Y E R F O R R E L I E F

WHEREFORE, Sampo respectfullyrequests that this Court enterjudgment in its favor asfollows:

A. Holding that Blackboard has directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrineof equivalents, the claims of the 149 Patent;

B. Holding thatBlackboardhas indirectly infringed,literally and/or under thedoctrine of equivalents, the claims of the 149 Patent;

C. Holding that Blackboard has directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrineof equivalents, the claims of the 229 Patent;

IU


27/30

D. Holding that Blackboard has indirectly infringed, literally and/or under thedoctrine of equivalents, the claims of the 229 Patent;

E. Holding that Blackboard has directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrineof equivalents, the claims of the 495 Patent;

F. Holding that Blackboard has indirectly infringed, literally and/or under thedoctrine of equivalents, the claims of the 495 Patent;

G. Permanently enjoining Blackboard and its officers, directors, agents, servants,employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting in concert orprivity with anyof them from infringing, inducingthe infringementof, or contributing to theinfringement of the 149 Patent;

H. Permanently enjoining Blackboard and its officers, directors, agents, servants,employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting in concert orprivity withany of them from infringing, inducing the infringement of, orcontributing to theinfringement of the 229 Patent;

I. Permanently enjoining Blackboard and its officers, directors, agents, servants,employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting in concert orprivity with any of them from infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to theinfringement of the 495 Patent;

Permanently enjoining theuseof Blackboard s online communication systemcreated using the patented methods of the Patents-in-Suit;

K. Awarding to Sampo the damages to which it is entitled under 35 U.S.C. 284 forBlackboard s past infringement and any continuing or future infringement up until the date

27


28/30

Blackboard is finally and permanently enjoined from further infringement, including bothcompensatory damages and treble damages for willful infringement;

L. Holding that Salesforce has directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrineof equivalents, the claims of the 149 Patent;

M. Holding that Salesforce has indirectly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrineof equivalents, the claims of the 149 Patent;

N. Holding that Salesforce has directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrineof equivalents, the claims of the 229 Patent;

O. Holding that Salesforce has indirectly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrineof equivalents, the claims of the 229 Patent;

P. Holding that Salesforce has directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrineof equivalents, the claims of the 495 Patent;

Q. Holding that Salesforce has indirectly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrineof equivalents, the claims of the 495 Patent;

R. Permanently enjoining Salesforce and its officers, directors, agents, servants,employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others actingin concert orprivity with any of them from infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributingto theinfringement of the 149 Patent;

S. Permanently enjoining Salesforce and its officers, directors, agents, servants,

employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting in concert orprivity with any of them from infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to theinfringement o f the 229 Patent;

28


29/30

T. Permanently enjoining Salesforce and its officers, directors, agents, servants,employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting in concert orprivitywith any of them from infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to theinfringement of the '495 Patent;

U. Permanently enjoining the use of Salesforce's online communication systemcreated using the patented methods of the Patents-in-Suit;

V. Awarding to Sampo the damages to which it is entitled under 35 U.S.C. 284 forSalesforce's past infringement and any continuing or future infringement up until the date

Salesforce is finally and permanently enjoined from further infringement, including bothcompensatory damages and treble damages for willful infringement;

W. Declaring this to be an exceptional case and awarding Sampo's attorneys' feesunder 35 U.S.C. 285;

X. Awarding Sampo costs and expenses in this action;Y. Awarding Sampo pre- and post-judgmentinterest on its damages; andZ. Awarding Sampo such other and further relief in law or in equity as this Court

deems just and proper.J U R Y D E M A N D

Sampo, underRule38 of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure, requestsa trial byjury ofany and all issues so triable by right.

29


30/30

Dated: November 7, 2013

OF COUNSEL:

Robert Whi tmana rk a sk inMishcon de Reya New York LLP750 Seven th Ave , 26th FloorNew York, New York 10019Telephone (212) 612-3270Facsimile (212) [email protected]@mishcon.com

Laurin II. Mills (VSB No. 79848)C. Matthew Hayncs (VSB No. 77896)LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100Alexandria, Virginia 22314703.684.8007 Telephone703.684.8075 FacsimileEmail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Counselfor the PlaintiffSampo IP LLC

sampo ip v. blackboard et. al..pdf

Documents